FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Do I scandalize my young child for allowing him to be around my homosexual brother?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
(02-21-2018, 06:38 PM)FultonFan Wrote: [ -> ]My youngest brother is an extremely flamboyant, open homosexual.  He has basically all the accompanying personality traits; sarcastic, show-offy, argumentative, profane, passive-aggressive, etc. My wife and son and I will usually see him at my parents' house once a week for supper.  My son is almost 3 years old.

My brother even had a "boyfriend" up until about a year ago.  They were together for a while.  The guy he was with was probably even MORE obnoxious than my brother.   Thankfully he's no longer around.

My question: as my son gets to an age of understanding things a little better, should I do my best to keep him away from my brother?

On one hand, I want to be charitable to my brother to the extent possible (i.e. Treating him kindly, while not giving the appearance of being OK with his manner of life.). On the other hand, I want to keep my son away from any danger.  Thoughts?

If this person is as obnoxious as you say he is he will do your work for you.
(02-22-2018, 04:11 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-22-2018, 03:35 PM)Ptochos Wrote: [ -> ]I would not leave the child alone with the brother for any length of time and absolutely never use him as a babysitter.

Just to note, that while this and similar comments have been previously made, actual evidence does not demonstrate that a perverse sexuality (a homosexual attraction) is in any way related to a different perverse sexuality (pedophilia). In short, there is zero evidence to suggest that a homosexual is more likely to sexually abuse a child, and the statistics show that most molestation is heterosexual.

That said, I would not want anyone who is living a seriously evil moral life around children, whatever the moral problem may be.

The objection is to making the implicit connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. There appears to be no such connection.

Not sure what you mean by "implicit" connection, but homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals are. 

This study measures pedophilia -- not pedophilic offenses -- and concludes that homosexuals are 11 times more likely to be pedophiles: "The proportions of heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles among sex offenders against children: an exploratory study": https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1556756

A 1992 study published in the "Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy," K. Freud and R. I. Watson report that homosexual males are three times more likely than straight men to engage in pedophilic acts.

And when it comes to ephebophilia, it's homosexual ephebophilia that constitutes most of the clerical sex abuse problem in the human element of the Church. ABC News reports that "Ninety percent of the reported abuse cases involved Roman Catholic priests classified as ephebophiles, those attracted to teens between 13 and 19."  81% of the victims were male, according to the John Jay Report commissioned by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. 

But of course, this in NO way means that "homosexuals are pedophiles." That simply isn't true.
I don't think
(02-23-2018, 11:20 AM)VoxClamantis Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-22-2018, 04:11 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-22-2018, 03:35 PM)Ptochos Wrote: [ -> ]I would not leave the child alone with the brother for any length of time and absolutely never use him as a babysitter.

Just to note, that while this and similar comments have been previously made, actual evidence does not demonstrate that a perverse sexuality (a homosexual attraction) is in any way related to a different perverse sexuality (pedophilia). In short, there is zero evidence to suggest that a homosexual is more likely to sexually abuse a child, and the statistics show that most molestation is heterosexual.

That said, I would not want anyone who is living a seriously evil moral life around children, whatever the moral problem may be.

The objection is to making the implicit connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. There appears to be no such connection.

Not sure what you mean by "implicit" connection, but homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals are. 

This study measures pedophilia -- not pedophilic offenses -- and concludes that homosexuals are 11 times more likely to be pedophiles: "The proportions of heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles among sex offenders against children: an exploratory study": https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1556756

A 1992 study published in the "Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy," K. Freud and R. I. Watson report that homosexual males are three times more likely than straight men to engage in pedophilic acts.

And when it comes to ephebophilia, it's homosexual ephebophilia that constitutes most of the clerical sex abuse problem in the human element of the Church. ABC News reports that "Ninety percent of the reported abuse cases involved Roman Catholic priests classified as ephebophiles, those attracted to teens between 13 and 19."  81% of the victims were male, according to the John Jay Report commissioned by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. 

But of course, this in NO way means that "homosexuals are pedophiles." That simply isn't true.

Vox, as you know I would in no way be promoting or suggesting either homosexual acts or pedophilic/ephebophilic acts are in any way good. Nor that the underlying perverse sexuality is good. Still, I think we cannot make such certain conclusions or connections.

For instance the 1992 Study is often used to show such a connection, but Dr Robin Wilson, associate and assistant of Dr Freund (not Freud ... oh how ironic that would be), later public expressed disappointment about fundamentalist Protestants and family groups misusing the study, saying :

Quote:These articles have frequently been cited by fundamentalist lobbyists as proof-positive that homosexuals are more inclined to molest children. This was not a finding of our research, period. What we found was that, among men with a sexual preference for children, there was an over-representation of men with a same-sex preference. To reiterate, among men with a sexual preference for children, as diagnosed using Dr. Freund's phallometric test, there was a higher relative incidence of homosexuality. In all other research we conducted, we never found that androphilic (i.e., a preference for male adults) men had any greater relative erotic interest in children than did their gynephilic (i.e., a preference for female adults) peers. Dr. Freund was and would continue to be greatly distressed that any of his research would contribute to the persecution of any group of people.

The study found that pedophiles are more likely to be homosexual, not that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles.

An earlier study done by Freund and Wilson in 1989 (K. Freund, R. Wilson, D. Rienzo, "Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, and Erotic Age Preference," The Journal of Sex Research, 26(1), Feb. 1989, pp. 107-117), concluded that :

Quote:Findings indicate that homosexual males who preferred mature partners responded no more to male children than heterosexual males who preferred mature partners responded to female children.

Which would mean that homosexuals are no more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals.

The problem with the Church statistics is two-fold : Firstly we're talking only about men (while abuse rates by women are lower than men, they are not zero); secondly, we are looking at male clergy. 

Before the scandals broke, few people would have been particularly troubled with a teenage boy going to meet with Father for a while, but if a teenage girl had gone to meet with Father for a while and frequently, then there would be some eyebrows raised. This is why the Church long advocated that women (even teenage girls) always receive spiritual direction in the confessional, and one-on-one meetings with the priest in an office should always be brief, infrequent and never stray outside of the immediate topic of concern, and always be done in an office with the door open or at least a large window with others around. Yet it would not have been seen as uncouth for a pre-teen or teenage boy to be around the church, serve Mass, work in the sacristy, do manual labor for the priests, etc. Abusive clergy had regular access to boys, not to girls.

Numbers then are always going to be skewed unless that can be taken into account. 

The John Jay study does not support the ABC News claim :

Quote:The largest group of alleged victims (50.9%) was between the ages of 11 and 14, 27.3% were 15-17, 16% were 8-10 and nearly 6% were under age 7. Overall, 81% of victims were male and 19% female. Male victims tended to be older than female victims. Over 40% of all victims were males between the ages of 11 and 14.

And also the study reports that :

Quote:The alleged abuse occurred in a variety of locations. The abuse is alleged to have occurred in the following locations: in the priest’s home or the parish residence (40.9%), in the church (16.3%), in the victim’s home (12.4%), in a vacation house (10.3%), in school (10.3%), and in a car (9.8%). The abuse allegedly occurred in other sites, such as church outings or in a hotel room, in less than 10% of the allegations. The most common event or setting in which the abuse occurred was during a social event (20.4%), while visiting or working at the priest’s home (14.7%), and during travel (17.8%). Abuse allegedly occurred in other settings, such as during counseling, school hours, and sporting events, in less than 10% of the allegations.


But considering what was above and these data about locations, it is clear that a priest-abuser would have had far more ready access to a male victim, meaning "homosexual" behavior more likely.

That study does not report anything regarding the alleged "sexual orientation" of the priests involved.

Finally, other studies such as a 1994 study in Pediatrics by Dr Carol Jenny "Are Children at Risk for Sexual Abuse by Homosexuals?" found : 

Quote:A child’s risk of being molested by his or her relative’s heterosexual partner is 100 times greater than by someone who might be identified as homosexual.

A 1998 Journal of American Medicine study by Dr William Holmes, "Sexual abuse of boys: definition, prevalence, correlates, sequelae, and management," found that found that 98 percent of men who abused boys were identified by themselves, their family or community as heterosexual.

It fact the later data suggest that attraction to children (pre- or post-pubescent) is not likely to be due to the gender of the victim, but due to the age

Now, logic would say that later in teenage year there is much more likely to be due to a homosexual or heterosexual attraction, because these people are closer to, if not actually sexually mature, so it is less of a abnormal attraction like pedophilia, and more the (sinful) acting out of their "normal" correct or perverse attraction (homosexual or heterosexual).
He's your brother. If he isn't showing your child entertainment about portraying homosexuals as some victim of society or asking him, "So what do you think about two boys kissing one another?" in order to normalize sodomy then I don't see much of a problem. If your brother knows his role - as an uncle - and not as the parent then I don't see much of an issue. Let's not feed into the stereotype of Catholic homophobia.
Pages: 1 2 3